[H]

profgrape [09|Oct 11:59 am]:   In this context, perceived = sensation + unconscious decisions about how to interpret that sensation
profgrape [09|Oct 11:59 am]:   The Sarcophagus is AFAICT a completely real thing
profgrape [09|Oct 12:00 pm]:   Maybe the most utterly Objective thing in the universe
H [09|Oct 12:00 pm]:   But the soul running it must be the real key.
profgrape [09|Oct 12:01 pm]:   Yes
profgrape [09|Oct 12:01 pm]:   It needs the right Subject.
profgrape [09|Oct 12:02 pm]:   That's why I'm riffing on the idea that Kelmomas' lack of a fixed identity somehow leads to a non-fixed Subject
H [09|Oct 12:02 pm]:   So, the "collapse" is where Kel and the Sarcophagus are one.
profgrape [09|Oct 12:02 pm]:   It creates some kind of motor based on the fact that it can't be collapsed into the Object.
tleilaxu [09|Oct 12:02 pm]:   there is a post in the AMA
tleilaxu [09|Oct 12:04 pm]:   "Consider the difference between what you're presently looking at (an objective thing) and how you're looking (via subjective experience). Thus the famous subject/object dichotomy. So say you pose the question, which comes first? An idealist believes the object is a figment of the subject, whereas a materialist believes the subject is a figment of the object."
tleilaxu [09|Oct 12:04 pm]:   I dunno
H [09|Oct 12:06 pm]:   Definitely something to that quote, yes. Consider, the dichotomy as presented in that quote and what the No-God continually asks.
tleilaxu [09|Oct 12:06 pm]:   good point
tleilaxu [09|Oct 12:07 pm]:   the is both at once, it doesn't know what it is
tleilaxu [09|Oct 12:07 pm]:   the no-god*
profgrape [09|Oct 12:09 pm]:   As the NG has been described as a p-zombie, it sounds like it takes the Subject and forces it into the Object's frame.
H [09|Oct 12:09 pm]:   Right, presumably the whole fuction of the No-God could come from the "potential difference" of a soul connecting the anode of Subject on one side and Object as the diode..
profgrape [09|Oct 12:10 pm]:   I guess I'm putting forth that as Kel is an unfixed Subject, it has a special reaction with the object.

Just putting this here for the moment, so we can further collect our thoughts on the No-God being some kind of collapse of Subject and Object.

[H]

SmilerLoki [10|Jul 08:51 am]:   i also feel that, if we assume that the no-god is an argument against physicalism, then the gods are an argument against if not straight up philosophy, then at least senusalism in the broad sense, which would mean that Bakker is just criticising everything
H [10|Jul 08:52 am]:   Well, if there is no consciousness, there is no awareness. So, in this way, is there meaning without awareness?
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 08:53 am]:   assuming it is indeed so, that would be just a consequence
H [10|Jul 08:53 am]:   But I think the No-God is the ultimate expression of the Consult's arguement. If there is no conscious awareness, is there sin? And so, is there damnation?
H [10|Jul 08:54 am]:   So, meaning is simply a consequence of being?
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 08:55 am]:   of consious being. i also like your though about the Consult's argument. it sits well with me
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 08:56 am]:   by which i mean i feel no counter argument coming on, it works within the internal logic of the series the way i understand it
profgrape [10|Jul 08:59 am]:   Agree on the Consult's argument. The Tekne as a tool to bypass consciousness
H [10|Jul 08:59 am]:   Right, I guess we could then sort of say, that a "good reason" why the COnsult would "worship" the No-God is because it is a deity without judgement, being without consciousness.
profgrape [10|Jul 08:59 am]:   I'm not convinced that meaning == being
H [10|Jul 09:00 am]:   Well, I don't think you should be, profgrape.
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:00 am]:   i have a feeling the no-god is a tool to destroy the consciousness of the world, but not individual consciousness
profgrape [10|Jul 09:00 am]:   Bakker's writing about a meaningless world seemed to describe a world where the truth of all things was known.
profgrape [10|Jul 09:01 am]:   That by understanding the way things are scientifically we effectively eliminate meaning.
profgrape [10|Jul 09:02 am]:   Sort of like where the progenitors wound up. All things (save the soul) were understood objectively
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:02 am]:   that's not at all how science works, at least the way it is pursued now
H [10|Jul 09:02 am]:   I'm not sure I'd buy that. Science doesn't eliminate meaning, it reframes it.
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:02 am]:   i would go even further and say that science is just a tool to produce results
H [10|Jul 09:03 am]:   I'd highly recomend Peterson's Maps of Meaning. It is dense though and not a particularly light read.
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:03 am]:   for better fitness on many levels, from individual to entire species
profgrape [10|Jul 09:03 am]:   Well, science produces best explanations
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:04 am]:   explanations of what?
profgrape [10|Jul 09:04 am]:   How stuff works?
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:04 am]:   ah, got it. i wouldn't call it that
H [10|Jul 09:04 am]:   But explainations aren't meanings though.
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:05 am]:   i would say it creates frames of reference that are of use for a specific task. whether they have meaning is an open question
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:05 am]:   yes, what H said
profgrape [10|Jul 09:06 am]:   That might be a fault in my interpretation, H. And yes SL, that makes sense.
H [10|Jul 09:06 am]:   Meaning is tricky as a motherfucker to define. Peterson has helped me reframe it in my mind.
profgrape [10|Jul 09:07 am]:   I'm not equating explanations to meaning, specifically
profgrape [10|Jul 09:07 am]:   More that explanations are Subject, reality is Object.
profgrape [10|Jul 09:07 am]:   Meaning is the span between the two.
profgrape [10|Jul 09:08 am]:   I guess maybe meaning == belief?
profgrape [10|Jul 09:08 am]:   The distance between two frames of reference?
profgrape [10|Jul 09:09 am]:   Or maybe not distance but transformation
profgrape [10|Jul 09:09 am]:   In a linear algebra sense
profgrape [10|Jul 09:10 am]:   Cuz math makes more sense to me than philosophy :-)
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:10 am]:   oh, that gave me an idea. i inherently don't like the stance that explanations are Subject, reality is Object. reality is both Subject and Object, but in the world of Earwa they are тещ mixed together
H [10|Jul 09:10 am]:   Hmmm, well, meaning is more of a relationship, but perhaps a transformation could be appropriate.
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:11 am]:   the Outside is Subject, while the material world is Object, if we believe Ajencis
H [10|Jul 09:11 am]:   Meaning relates the Object to the Subject and so, the Subject back to the Object. I think this is what leads to the Watcher-Watched loop.
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:12 am]:   indeed. and the Cubit, Zero, collapsed it already
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:12 am]:   perhaps this is why the Inchoroi must win?
H [10|Jul 09:13 am]:   I'm not following that last step.
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:14 am]:   the Cubit exists, as evidenced by the Judging Eye, so the loop between the Outside and the world is collapsed at some point, since the nature of the Cubit is atemporal
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:15 am]:   and be the definition we get from the Mutilated, the no-god collapses this same loop
profgrape [10|Jul 09:16 am]:   What is the Cubit?
H [10|Jul 09:16 am]:   I'm not following why the Cubit's existance predicates the loop being broken?
profgrape [10|Jul 09:17 am]:   Something like: the Gods are blind to the NG, thus it must rise at some point.
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:18 am]:   because it is Zero, there are no Subject and Object for it, but there are in the world that the series describes so far
profgrape [10|Jul 09:19 am]:   Is Zero the Eschaton?
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:19 am]:   actually, i never liked that argument. invisibility to the gods seems to just be a property of the no-god. it is beyond their ken
profgrape [10|Jul 09:19 am]:   The result of the collapse?
H [10|Jul 09:20 am]:   I think I follow what you are saying. The Cubit is the result of the collapse, that the No-God must have produced.
profgrape [10|Jul 09:20 am]:   I think it's a property because it defines the end of the Gods' frame and thus, is invisible.
profgrape [10|Jul 09:21 am]:   At least, that's my takeaway from what Oinaral told Sorweel
H [10|Jul 09:23 am]:   Right, the gods have perceptual horizons, just the same as humans.
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:23 am]:   that would still stand if it is just a property of the no-god. it stands both ways, when it is considered a cause, and when it's considered an effect. i can't say which is right, and those two are contradictory
profgrape [10|Jul 09:23 am]:   No reason, of course, to expect that Sorweel was right! TSA is all about unreliable explanations
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:24 am]:   and yes, H, that's what I was talking about regarding the Cubit
profgrape [10|Jul 09:25 am]:   Where does the term "Cubit" come from?
profgrape [10|Jul 09:25 am]:   Was that from Koringhus?
H [10|Jul 09:25 am]:   Pretty sure it was Koringhus, yes.
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:26 am]:   i actually borrowed it from H's posts, but it descrives a way Koringhus explains the world
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:26 am]:   the way*
H [10|Jul 09:26 am]:   Here I was thinking that the Cubit, being the fundiment, would have predated the gods, but that actually doesn't make sense in retrospect now.
profgrape [10|Jul 09:26 am]:   "The absence that was the cubit of all creation"
profgrape [10|Jul 09:27 am]:   Cubit being the fundamental measurement of existence
profgrape [10|Jul 09:27 am]:   I love that I've read that chapter at least 5 times and yet totally missed that!
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:27 am]:   oh, yes, this
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:30 am]:   i also constantly get sucked into the trap of predates/follows, but it doesn't at all make sense from atemporal perspective, which is always in effect
profgrape [10|Jul 09:30 am]:   I hadn't considered the ZG to be a measure
profgrape [10|Jul 09:31 am]:   lol yes, thinking atemporal is a conscious act on our parts and it's easy to forget
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:31 am]:   it is only a measure in the sense that the number zero is, and it is a strange one
profgrape [10|Jul 09:31 am]:   But I guess the ZG as a basis is the same as a measure
profgrape [10|Jul 09:33 am]:   That's a cool way to think about it, SL
profgrape [10|Jul 09:34 am]:   I'd thought of it as an absolute frame. But it's clearly more special than that, like zero
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:36 am]:   you guys are super helpful when it comes to understanding things! or, you know, actually using my brain
profgrape [10|Jul 09:37 am]:   Back on the linear algebra interpretation, if the ZG is a zero matrix, that would have the effect of zeroing all other frames
profgrape [10|Jul 09:37 am]:   Z = M*Z
profgrape [10|Jul 09:38 am]:   Not a measure but an operator
profgrape [10|Jul 09:38 am]:   Transforming all frames to zero
profgrape [10|Jul 09:38 am]:   Seems NG-ish, no?
SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:38 am]:   it does, in fact
profgrape [10|Jul 09:41 am]:   I've fallen into the classic trap of thinking of matrices (frames) as things rather than operators!
profgrape [10|Jul 09:43 am]:   Frames are operators on what, though -- observable phenomena? Existence?
profgrape [10|Jul 09:44 am]:   What is the operand?
profgrape [10|Jul 09:44 am]:   WHAT IS THE OPERAND ;-)

Another dump for posterity.  I'll try to distill it later.

[SmilerLoki]

SmilerLoki [10|Jul 09:10 am]:   oh, that gave me an idea. i inherently don't like the stance that explanations are Subject, reality is Object. reality is both Subject and Object, but in the world of Earwa they are тещ mixed together

This should read as:

oh, that gave me an idea. i inherently don't like the stance that explanations are Subject, reality is Object. reality is both Subject and Object, but in the world of Earwa they are not mixed together

***
It happens because I use a program to automatically switch the language I type in based on letter combinations (I find it very helpful, mishaps notwithstanding). Some typos in English look more like another language to it.

[TLEILAXU]

Love those math analogies.

[H]

Not a measure but an operator.  Transforming all frames to zero.

Well, from the non-mathmatical aspect, a frame is the perspective.

I've fallen into the classic trap of thinking of matrices (frames) as things rather than operators!  Frames are operators on what, though -- observable phenomena? Existence? What is the operand?

If Frames, then, are the perspective, then they operate on perception.  Even more to the point though, they operative on the subjective valuation of perceiving (i.e. consciousness?).  So, the Cubit, is the ultimate Frame, because it is the perception of the thing, from the thing, because all things are one thing, no thing, the Zero thing.  There is no distance, Subject and Object are the same.

[profgrape]

Not a measure but an operator.  Transforming all frames to zero.

Well, from the non-mathmatical aspect, a frame is the perspective.

I've fallen into the classic trap of thinking of matrices (frames) as things rather than operators!  Frames are operators on what, though -- observable phenomena? Existence? What is the operand?

If Frames, then, are the perspective, then they operate on perception.  Even more to the point though, they operative on the subjective valuation of perceiving (i.e. consciousness?).  So, the Cubit, is the ultimate Frame, because it is the perception of the thing, from the thing, because all things are one thing, no thing, the Zero thing.  There is no distance, Subject and Object are the same.

Yes; operator = ZG and operand = perspective.

[H]

Yes; operator = ZG and operand = perspective.

So then, the Zero God is the Subject and Object merged, the No-God, the Subject and Object as a sort of disjunctive union?

[Monkhound]

profgrape [10|Jul 09:37 am]:   Z = M*Z
profgrape [10|Jul 09:38 am]:   Not a measure but an operator
profgrape [10|Jul 09:38 am]:   Transforming all frames to zero

I like the whole discussion dump, but this analogy best. Nice one, and food for thought 

[profgrape]

profgrape [10|Jul 09:37 am]:   Z = M*Z
profgrape [10|Jul 09:38 am]:   Not a measure but an operator
profgrape [10|Jul 09:38 am]:   Transforming all frames to zero

I like the whole discussion dump, but this analogy best. Nice one, and food for thought 

After ruminating on this for a bit, I think a better description is that the NG acts as an inverse to each individual's local frame.

if L is a local frame and p is observable phenomena, we have 

p' = L*p

which is phenomena with respect to the local frame.  If we define the NG as L-1, the inverse of a local frame, we get

p' = (L-1)*L*p
p' = I*p
p' = p

(L-1)(L) yields the identity, I and thus p' = p, unaffected by the local frame or to put a TSA twist on it, Absolute. 

QED